Computer Ethics

9/12/2020 Print –

Fall 2020 – GLB/Ethics, Law & Cybersec (CSCI-415-02W)

https://myleoonline.tamuc.edu/d2l/le/calendar/56728/event/211897/detailsview#211897 1/4

Quiz 3/Week 3 – Due Sep 13, 2020 11:59 PM

Fall 2020 – GLB/Ethics, Law & Cybersec (CSCI-415-02W)

CSCI 415 Ethics, Law and Cybersecurity

Chapter 3 Quiz

 

NAME: _______________________________DATE: _________________

 

Chapter 3 – Quiz 3

Instructions:  There are two (2) topic areas listed below that are designed to measure

your knowledge level specific to learning outcome (LO 3) shown in your course syllabus. 

Please provide appropriate responses in essay form for both.  In most cases the topic

area has several components. Each must be addressed to properly satisfy

requirements.

 

State-wide and in most professional industries, there has been a mandate that college

students be more proficient in their writing. While this is not a writing class, all writing

assignments will be graded for grammar, syntax and typographical correctness to help

address this mandate.

 

Pay attention to what you are being asked to do (see Grading Rubric below). For

example, to describe does not mean to list, but to tell about or illustrate in more than

two or three sentences, providing appropriate arguments for your responses using

theories discussed in our text.  Be sure to address all parts of the topic question as

most have multiple parts. A verifiable current event (less than 4 years old) relevant to at

least one of the topics you respond to is a fundamental component of your quiz as well. 

You cannot use information from the text book or any book/article by the author of

the text book as a current event.  Make sure that your reference has a date of

publication.  For each chapter quiz and final quiz you are required to find and include at

least one reference and reference citation to a current event less than 4 years old (a reference

with no date (n.d.) is not acceptable) in answer to at least one question. This requires a

reference citation in the text of your answer and a reference at the end of the question to

which the reference applies. You must include some information obtained from the reference

9/12/2020 Print – Fall 2020 – GLB/Ethics, Law & Cybersec (CSCI-415-02W)

https://myleoonline.tamuc.edu/d2l/le/calendar/56728/event/211897/detailsview#211897 2/4

in your answer. The references must be found on the internet and you must include a URL in

your reference so that the reference can be verified. 

 

You should type your responses directly under the appropriate question. Be sure to

include your name on your quiz. Only the first two (2) questions with answers will be

graded.   Include your name in the document filename. Your completed quiz must be

uploaded into the appropriate eCollege Dropbox, no later than 11:59pm on the due

date.  Do well.

 

1. Based on what you have learned in this chapter and using appropriate

components, properly construct an argument to: (1) support or refute the view

that all undergraduate students should be required to take a course in

cyberethics; and (2) apply the seven steps (in Section 3.8) to your argument. 

Please elaborate (beyond a yes or no answer) and provide your rationale in

support of your responses (comprehension)

 
 
 

2. Using appropriate components construct an argument for or against the view

that privacy protection should be improved in e-commerce transactions.  Next

evaluate your arguments against the rules for valid, inductive, and fallacious

arguments.  Does your argument contain any of the common or “informal”

fallacies discussed in Section 3.9?  If so, elaborate. Please elaborate (beyond a

yes or no answer) and provide your rationale in support of your responses

(knowledge)

 

Grading Rubric for Quizzes

ng criterion Unit Points Total

Uploaded to correct Dropbox 2 2

Submitted on time 15 15

Document Filename:

9/12/2020 Print – Fall 2020 – GLB/Ethics, Law & Cybersec (CSCI-415-02W)

https://myleoonline.tamuc.edu/d2l/le/calendar/56728/event/211897/detailsview#211897 3/4

Quiz 3/Week 3

Due September 13 at 11:59 PM Starts Sep 7, 2020 9:00 AM

Your Last Name,first and middle initial with correct quiz number 5 5

(Example only: Creider_RD_q1)

Rationally expressed opinions, experiences (personal or observed), 8

arguments and premises (where appropriate) to support responses

(did not simply restate/summarize author/textbook

Clearly presented classical ethics theories relative to topic 8

Included ‘URL’ for appropriate verifiable current event 12 28

(i.e., example of topic being discussed WITH EXPLANATION)

NOTE: Must be less than 4 years old

 

Grammatically correct and appropriate tone                                10

(professional, non offensive language)

 

Typographically correct                                                               10                     20

 

Included full citations as needed                                                    3

Used correct APA format                                                               7                     10

 

Addressed each item within selected topic area                           20                     20

 

Maximum grade                                                                         100                   100

 

NOTE: POINTS WILL BE DEDUCTED FROM TOTAL ASSIGNMENT GRADE IF EACH

QUESTION YOU SELECTED IS NOT INCLUDED IMMEDIATELY BEFORE EACH

ANSWER.

 

9/12/2020 Print – Fall 2020 – GLB/Ethics, Law & Cybersec (CSCI-415-02W)

https://myleoonline.tamuc.edu/d2l/le/calendar/56728/event/211897/detailsview#211897 4/4

Ethics

and Morality

 The term Ethics is derived from Ethos
(Greek), and Morality from Mores (Latin).

 Both terms translate roughly into notions
affecting “custom,” ”habit,” and “behavior.”

 Ethics is defined as the study of morality,
which raises two questions:

1) What is morality?

2) What is the study of morality?

Moral Dilemmas and Moral Issues

 Before defining “morality” and a “moral
system,” it is worth noting that not every
moral issue (or moral problem) that arises is
(also) necessarily a moral dilemma.

 We sometimes tend to confuse the phrases
moral issue and moral dilemma.

 A dilemma is a situation where one must
choose between two undesirable options,
which often leads to one’s having to choose
between “the lesser of two evils.”

Moral Dilemmas vs. Moral Issues
(Continued

 It is also important to note that not
every dilemma is moral in nature.

 The example of the “runaway trolley”
(Scenario 2-1 in the textbook) illustrates
a moral dilemma.

 Most of the moral concerns/problem
that we examine in this text are moral
issues (as opposed to moral dilemmas).

What is Morality?

 Morality can be defined as a system of
rules for guiding human conduct, and
principles for evaluating those rules.

Two points are worth noting in this definition:

i.

morality

is a system;

ii. it is a system comprised of moral rules and
principles.

 Moral rules can be understood as “rules of
conduct,” which are very similar to “policies.”

Rules of Conduct as “Policies”

 James Moor (2004) notes that policies can range
from formal laws to informal, implicit guidelines
for actions.

 Moor suggests that every act can be viewed as
an instance of a policy.

 There are two kinds of rules of conduct:

1) Directives for guiding our conduct as individuals
(at the micro-level)

2) Social Policies framed at the macro-level.

Directives

 Directives are rules (of conduct) that guide our
actions, and thus direct us to behave in certain
ways.

 Rules such as

 “Do not steal”

 “Do not harm others”

are examples of rules of conduct that direct us in
our individual moral choices at the “micro-ethi-
cal” level (i.e., the level of individual behavior).

Social Policies

 Some rules of conduct guide our actions at the
“macro-ethical” level by helping us frame social
policies.

 Rules such as

 “Proprietary software should not be copied“

 “Software that can be used to invade the privacy of

users should not be developed”
are both examples of rules of conduct that arise out

of our social policies.

 Notice the correlation between directives and social
policies (e.g., rules involving stealing).

Principles

 The rules of conduct in a moral system are
evaluated by way of standards called
principles.

 For example, the principle of “social utility“
(i.e., promoting the greatest good for the
greatest number) can be used to evaluate a
social policy such as

 “Proprietary software should not be copied
without permission.”

Principles (Continued)

 In the previous example, the principle of
social-utility functioned as a kind of “litmus
test” for determining whether the policy
pertaining to proprietary software could be
justified on moral grounds.

 A policy, X, could be justified (on utilitarian
grounds) by showing that following Policy X
(i.e., not allowing the unauthorized copying
of software) would produce more overall
social utility (greater good for society).

Figure 2-1: Basic Components of
a Moral System

Rules of Conduct

(Action-guiding rules, in the form

of either directives or social

policies)

Principles of Evaluation

(Evaluative standards used

to justify rules of conduct)

two types Examples include principles such

as of social utility and justice as

fairness

Rules for guiding the

actions of individuals

(micro-level ethical

rules)

Rules for establishing

social policies

(macro-level ethical rules)

Examples include directives

such as:”Do not steal” and

“Do not harm others.”

Examples include social policies such as:

“Software should be protected“ and

“Privacy should be respected.”

Bernard Gert’s Scheme of a Moral
System

 According to Bernard Gert (2005),
morality is a system that is:

 like a game, but more like an informal
game (e.g., a game of cards)

 public (open and accessible to all)

 rational (open to reason)

 impartial (as illustrated in Gert’s
“blindfold of justice”).

Table 2-1: Four Features of

Gert’s Moral System

Public

The rules are

known to all

of the

members.

Informal

The rules are

informal, not

like formal

laws in a legal

system.

Rational

The system is

based on

principles of

logical reason

accessible to all

its members.

Impartial

The system is

not partial to

any one group

or individual.

Figure 2-2: Components of a
Moral System

Grounds for justifying moral principles Religion Philosophy Law

Principles of Evaluation

Rules of Conduct

Moral principles

and rules

Source of moral rules Core Values

The Role of Values in a Moral
System

 The term value comes from the Latin valere,
which translates roughly into having worth or
being of worth (Pojman, 2006).

 Values can be viewed as objects of our
desires or interests.

 Examples of values include very general
notions such happiness, love, freedom, etc.

 Moral principles are ultimately derived from a
society’s system of values.

Intrinsic vs. Instrumental Values

 Philosophers distinguish between two types
of values: intrinsic and instrumental values.

 Any value that serves some further end or
good is called an instrumental value because
it is tied to some external standard.

 For example, automobiles, computers, and
money are goods that have instrumental
value.

 Values such as life and happiness are intrinsic
because they are valued for their own sake.

Core Values

 Another approach to cataloguing values is to
distinguish core values, some of which may
or may not also be intrinsic values, from
other kinds of values.

 Moor (2004) argues that values such as life,
happiness, and autonomy are core values
because they are basic to a society’s thriving
and perhaps even to a society’s survival.

 Not all core values are also moral values.

Moral vs. Non-

Moral Values

 Morals and values are are not necessarily
identical.

 Values can be either moral or non-moral.

 Reason informs us that it is in our interest to
develop values that promote our own
survival, happiness, and flourishing as
individuals.

 When used to further only our own self-
interests, these values are not necessarily
moral values.

Moral Values

 Once we bring in the notion of impartiality,
we begin to take the “moral point of view.”

 When we frame the rules of conduct in a
moral system, we articulate a system of
values having to do with notions such as
autonomy, fairness, justice, etc., which are
moral values.

 Our basic moral values are derived from core
non-moral values.

Three Schemes for Grounding the
Evaluative Rules in a Moral System

 The principles are grounded in one of three
different kinds of schemes:

 religion;

 law;

 philosophical ethics.

 We will see how a particular moral principle
or rule – e.g., “Do not steal” – can be
justified from the vantage point of each
scheme.

Approach #1: Grounding Moral
Principles in a Religious System

 Consider the following rationale for why
stealing is morally wrong:

Stealing is wrong because it offends God
or because it violates one of God’s (Ten)
Commandments.

 From the point of view of institutionalized
religion, stealing is wrong because of it
offends God or because it violates the
commands of a supreme authority.

Approach #2: Grounding Moral
Principles in a Legal System

An alternative rationale would be:

Stealing is wrong because it violates the law.

 Here the grounds for determining why
stealing is wrong are not tied to religion.

 If stealing violates a law in a particular nation
or jurisdiction, then the act of stealing can be
declared to be wrong independent of any
religious beliefs that one may or may not
happen to have.

Approach #3: Grounding Moral Principles
in a Philosophical System of Ethics

 A third way of approaching the question is:

Stealing is wrong because it is wrong
(independent of any form of external authority or
any external sanctions).

 On this view, the moral “rightness” or
“wrongness” of stealing is not grounded in
some external authoritative source.

 It does not appeal to an external authority,
either theological or legal, for justification.

Approach # 3 Continued

 Many philosophers and ethicists have argued
that, independent of either supernatural or
legal authorities, reason alone is sufficient to
show that stealing is wrong.

 They argue that reason can inform us that
there is something either in the act of
stealing itself, or in the consequences that
result from this kind of act, that makes
stealing morally wrong.

Approach # 3 Continued

 In the case of both law and religion, specific
sanctions against stealing exist in the form of
punishment.

 In the case of (philosophical) ethics, the only
sanction would be in the form of social
disapproval, and possibly social ostracism.

 For example, there is no punishment in a
formal sense.

 External conditions or factors, in the form of
sanctions, are irrelevant.

The Method of Philosophical
Ethics

 The method philosophers use to analyze moral issues
is normative, in contrast to the descriptive method
that is used by social scientists.

 Sociological and anthropological studies are
descriptive because they describe or report how
people in various cultures and groups behave with
respect to the rules of a moral

system.

 For example, a sociologist might report that people
who live in nations along the Pacific Rim believe that
it is morally permissible to make copies of proprietary
software for personal use.

Philosophical Studies vs. Scientific
Studies

 Philosophical studies and scientific studies are similar
in that both require that a consistent methodological
scheme be used to verify hypotheses and theories.

 These verification schemes must satisfy criteria of
rationality and objectivity (or impartiality).

 Philosophical studies also differ from scientific studies
because scientists typically conduct experiments in a
laboratory to confirm or refute a hypothesis.

 Philosophers have no physical laboratory to test
ethical theories and claims; they evaluate a claim or
thesis by testing it against the rules of logical
argumentation (see Chapter 3).

Ethicists vs. Moralists

 Ethicists study morality from the perspective
of philosophical methodology and they appeal
to logical arguments to justify their positions.

 Moralists often claim to have all of the
answers regarding morality, and often they
exhibit characteristics that have been
described as “preachy” and “judgmental.”

 Some moralists may have a particular moral
agenda to advance.

Ethicists vs. Moralists (Continued)

 Ethicists, in using the philosophical method to
analyze and investigate moral issues, must
remain open to different sides of a dispute.

 An ethicist’s primary focus is on the study of
morality and the application of theories.

 Ethicists approach the study of moral issues
and controversies by way of standards that
are both rational (based on logic) and
impartial (open to others to verify).

Discussion Stoppers as “Roadblocks”

to Moral Discourse

 Discussion stoppers can be articulated in terms
of the following four questions:

1. People disagree about morality; so how can we
reach agreement on moral issues?

2. Who am I/Who are we to judge others and to
impose my/our values on others?

3. Isn’t morality simply a private matter?

4. Isn’t morality simply a matter that different
cultures and groups should determine for
themselves?

Discussion Stopper # 1: People Disagree on
Solutions to Moral Issues

 People who hold this view fail to recognize:

i. Experts in other fields of study, such as science
and math., also disagree on what the correct
answers to certain questions are.

ii. There is common agreement about answers to
some moral questions.

iii. People do not always distinguish

between

“disagreements about factual matters” and
“disagreements on general principles” in
disputes involving

morality.

Discussion Stopper # 2: Who am I to
Judge Others?

 We need to distinguish between:

a) “persons making judgments” and
“persons being judgmental,“ and

b) “judgments involving condemnations”
vs. “judgments involving evaluations.”

 Also, we are sometimes required to
make judgments about others.

Discussion Stopper # 3: Ethics is
Simply a Private Matter

 Many people assume that

morality is

essentially personal in nature and that
morality must therefore be simply a
private matter.

 “Private morality” is essentially an
oxymoron or contradictory notion.

 Morality is a public phenomenon (Gert).

Discussion Stopper # 4: Morality is Simply a
Matter for Individual Cultures to Decide

 According to this view, a moral system is
dependent on, or relative to, a particular culture
or group.

 There are some very serious problems with this
view, which is called ethical relativism.

 It is useful to distinguish between two positions
involving relativism:

 cultural relativism,

 moral relativism.

Discussion Stopper #4 Continued
– Cultural Relativism

 At the base of cultural relativism is the
following assumption:

(A) Different cultures have different belief
systems about what constitutes morally
right and wrong behavior.

 Note that (A) is essentially a descriptive
thesis.

Cultural Relativism Continued

 Although Thesis (A) – the view that different
groups have different conceptions about what is
morally right and morally wrong behavior – is
widely accepted, some social scientists believe
that the reported differences between cultures
have been greatly exaggerated.

 Other social scientists, as well as some philoso-
phers and historians, suggest that all cultures
may recognize some universal core moral values
(see, for example, Herodotus and Chomsky).

Cultural Relativism (Continued)

 Even if cultural relativism (Thesis A) is true, we
can ask if (A) logically implies the claim in (B):

(B) We should not morally evaluate the
behavior of people in culture’s other than our
own (because what is morally right or wrong
can only be determined only by some culture
or group, as there is no universal standard).

 Note that (B), unlike (A), is a normative thesis.
 Also note that moving from (A) to (B) is a move

from cultural relativism to moral relativism.

Moral Relativism

 The Moral relativist’s argument makes a
questionable move from premise (A), which is
a descriptive (or empirical) claim, to the
conclusion (B), which is a normative claim:

Premise: Different cultures have different
beliefs about what is right and wrong.

Conclusion: We should not morally
evaluate the behavior of people in culture’s
other than our own.

Moral Relativism (Continued)

 Many moral relativists mistakenly assume that

 if there is no universal moral standard, then

 in matters of morality, “anything goes.”

 Does this follow (logically)? Is it coherent?

 Can any culture to decide to do anything it
wants, merely because the majority of the
population agrees to doing it (e.g., genocide)?

 The moral relativist’s view is essentially incoher-
ent and inconsistent from a logical perspective.

Moral Relativism (Continued)

 Does it follow that people who reside outside a
particular culture, X, can never make any

judgments

about the behavior of those who live within X?

 Consider that in many tribes in West Africa, a ritual of
female circumcision is still practiced.

 While this practice has been a tradition for many
generations, some females living in tribes that still
perform this ritual on teenage girls have objected.

 Many people who live outside these cultures
condemn this practice as it is carried out today.

 Are they wrong in condemning this practice?

Moral Relativism (Continued)

 Assume that the majority of residents in
Culture X approve of female circumcision.

 Would it be inappropriate for those who lived
outside of West Africa to claim that the
treatment of young women in those tribes is
morally wrong, simply because they are not
members of Culture X?

 If we embrace that view, wouldn’t it follow
that a culture can devise any moral scheme it
wishes as long as the majority approve it?

Moral Absolutism (as an
Alternative to Moral Relativism)

 If we reject moral relativism, must we accept moral
absolutism?

 Moral absolutism claims that there is only one uniquely
correct answer to every moral problem and only one
universal standard for all cultures.

 The moral absolutist’s position is also controversial.

 One way to avoid the trap between moral relativism and
moral absolutism is to embrace moral objectivism.

 Moral objectivism asserts that (for at least some moral
issues) there can be more than one acceptable answer, so
long as rational standards apply.

Moral Objectivism vs. Moral
Absolutism (Continued)

 Recall that Gert notes that while there
may not be only one uniquely correct
answer to every moral problem, there
are can be incorrect answers to many of
these problems.

 So, moral objectivism can avoid the
moral relativist’s assumption that
“anything goes” in matters of morality.

Table 2-2 Summary of Logical Flaws

in the Discussion Stoppers

Stopper #2

Who am I to judge

others?

_

_________________

1. Fails to distinguish

between the act of

judging and being a

judgmental person.

2. Fails to distinguish

between judging as

condemning and

judging as evaluating.

3. Fails to recognize

that sometimes we are

required to make

judgments

Stopper #3

Ethics is imply a

private matter.

_________________

1. Fails to recognize that

morality is

essentially a public

system.

2. Fails to note that

personally-based

morality can cause

major harm to

others.

3. Confuses moral

choices with

individual or

personal

preferences.

Stopper #1

People disagree on

solutions to moral

issues.

__________________

1. Fails to recognize

that experts in many

areas disagree on key

issues in their fields.

2. Fails to recognize

that there are many

moral issues on which

people agree.

3. Fails to distinguish

between

disagreements about

principles and

disagreements about

facts.

Stopper #4

Morality is simply a

matter for individual

cultures to decide.

___________________

1. Fails to distinguish

between descriptive and

normative claims about

morality.

2. Assumes that people

can never reach

common agreement on

some moral principles.

3. Assumes that a

system is moral because

a majority in a culture

decides it is moral.

The Structure of Ethical Theories

 An essential feature of theory in general is
that it guides us in our investigations.

 In science, theory provides us with some
general principles and structures to analyze
our data.

 The purpose of ethical theory, like scientific
theory, is to provide a framework for
analyzing issues.

 Ideally, a good theory should be coherent,
consistent, comprehensive, and systematic.

The Structure of Ethical Theories
(Continued)

 To be coherent, the individual elements of
the theory must fit together to form a unified.

 For a theory to be consistent, its component
parts cannot contradict each other.

 To be comprehensive, a theory must be able
to apply broadly to a wide range of actions.

 And to be systematic, the theory cannot
simply address individual symptoms peculiar
to specific cases, while ignoring general
principles that would apply in similar cases.

Why Do we Need Ethical
Theories?

 Ethical theories can help us to avoid inconsistent
reasoning in our thinking about moral issues and
moral dilemmas.

 Recall again Scenario 2-1 (in the textbook), but now
imagine a variation of it in which victims of the trolley
accident are taken to the hospital and only limited
resources are available to the accident victims.

 Which moral principle would you use in deciding who
receives medical assistance and who does not?

 Can you also apply that principal consistently across
similar cases?

Four Kinds of Ethical Theories

 For our purposes, we organize ethical
theories into four broad categories:

 Consequence-based,

 Duty-based,

 Contract-based,

 Character-based.

Consequence-based Ethical
Theories

 Some argue that the primary goal of a moral
system is to produce desirable consequences
or outcomes for its members.

 On this view, the consequences (i.e., the
ends achieved) of actions and policies that
provide the ultimate standard against which
moral decisions must be evaluated.

 So if choosing between acts A or B, the
morally correct action will be the one that
produces the most desirable outcome.

Consequence-based Theories
(Continued)

 In determining the best ourcome, we
can ask the question, whose outcome?

 Utilitarians argue that it is the
consequences of the greatest number
of individuals, or the majority, in a
given society that deserve consideration
in moral deliberation.

Consequence-based Theories:
(Utilitarianism Continued)

 According to the utilitarian theory:

An individual act (X) or a social policy
(Y) is morally permissible if the
consequences that result from (X) or
(Y) produce the greatest amount of
good for the greatest number of
persons affected by the act or policy.

Consequence-based Theories:
(Utilitarianism Continued)

 Utilitarians draw on two key points in
defending their theory:

I. the principle of social utility should be
used to determine morality;

II. social utility can be measured by the
amount of happiness produced for
society as a whole.

Utilitarianism (continued)

 Utilitarians such as Jeremy
Bentham assume:

a) all people desire happiness;

b) happiness is an intrinsic good
that is desired for its own sake.

Utilitarianism (continued)

 According to John Stuart Mill:

The only possible proof showing that
something is audible is that people
actually hear it; the only possible
proof that something is visible is that
people actually see it; and the only
possible proof that something is des-
ired is that people actually desire it.

Act Utilitarianism

 According to act utilitarians:

An act, X, is morally permissible if
the consequences produced by
doing X result in the greatest good
for the greatest number of persons
affected by X.

Criticism of Act Utilitarianism

 Utilianiarism’s critics reject the emphasis on
the consequence of individual acts.

 They point out that in our day-to-day
activities, we tend not to deliberate on each
individual action as if that action were unique.

 Instead, they argue that we are inclined to
deliberate on the basis of certain principles or
general rules that guide our behavior.

Criticism of Act Utilitarianism
(continued)

 Consider some principles that may guide your
behavior as a consumer.

 Each time that you enter a store, do you ask
yourself the following question: “Shall I steal
item X in at this particular time?”

 Or, have you already formulated certain
general principles that guide your individual
actions, such as a principle to the effect: “It is
never morally permissible to steal.”

Rule Utilitarianism

 Some utilitarians argue that it is the
consequences that result from following rules
or principles, not the consequences of
individual acts, that are important.

 According to rule utilitarianism:

An act, X, is morally permissible if the
consequences of following the general rule
(Y), of which act X is an instance, would
bring about the greatest good for the
greatest number.

Criticism of Rule Utilitarianism

 Critics tend to attack one or both of the
following aspects of utilitarian theory:

I. morality is ultimately tied to happiness or
pleasure;

II. morality can ultimately be determined by
consequences (of either acts or policies).

 Critics of utilitarianism ague that morality can
be grounded neither in consequences nor in
happiness.

Duty-based Ethical Theories

 Immanuel Kant argued that morality must
ultimately be grounded in the concept of duty
or obligations that humans have to one
another.

 For Kant, morality can never be grounded in
the consequences of human actions.

 Thus, in Kant’s view, morality has nothing to
do with the promotion of happiness or the
achievement of desirable consequences.

Duty-based Ethical Theories
(Continued)

 Kant rejects utilitarianism in particular, and all
consequentialist ethical theories in general.

 For example, he points out that, in some
instances, performing our duties may result in
our being unhappy and may not necessarily lead
to consequences that are considered desirable.

 Theories in which the notion of duty, or
obligation, serve a foundation for morality are
called deontological theories.

 They derive their meaning from the Greek root
deon, which means duty.

Duty-based Ethical Theories
(Continued)

 Kant defends his ethical theory on
the grounds that:

1) humans are rational, autonomous
agents;

2) human beings are ends-in-
themselves, and not means to
ends.

Rule Deontology

 For Kant, morality conforms to a standard or
objective test, a principle that he calls the
Categorical Imperative.

 Kant’s imperative has a number of variations,
one of which directs us to:

Act always on that maxim or principle (or
rule) which ensures that all individuals will
be treated as ends-in-themselves and
never merely as a means to an end.

Rule Deontology (Continued)

 Another variation of the Categorical
Imperative can be paraphrased as:

Always act on that maxim or
principle (or rule) which can be
universally binding, without
exception, for all human beings.

Categorical Imperative

 Kant believed that if everyone followed the
categorical imperative, we would have a
genuinely moral system.

 It would be a system based on two essential
principles:

i. universality,
ii. impartiality.
 In such as system, every individual would be

treated fairly since the same rules would
apply universally to all persons.

Criticisms of Rule Deontology

 Kant’s categorical imperative has been criticized
because it cannot help us in cases where we
have two or more conflicting duties.

 For example, we have duties to both keep
promises and to tell the truth, and sometimes we
encounter situations in which we are required
either to:

a) tell the truth and break a promise or

b) to keep a promise and tell a lie.

 But Kant does not provide us with a mechanism
for resolving such conflicts.

Act Deontology

 David Ross argues that when two or more moral
duties clash, we have to look at the individual
situation (or “circumstance”) to determine which duty
is overriding.

 Like act utilitarians, Ross stresses the importance of
analyzing individual actions and situations to determ-
ine the morally appropriate course of action to take.

 Unlike utilitarians, Ross believes that we must not
consider the consequences of actions when
deliberating over which course of action morally
trumps or outweighs another.

Act Deontology (Continued)

 Like Kant (and deontologists in
general), Ross believes that the notion
of duty is ultimate criterion for
determining morality.

 Unlike Kant, however, Ross does not
believe that blind adherence to certain
maxims or rules can work in every case
for determining which duties we must
ultimately carry out.

Act Deontology (Continued)

 Ross believes that we have certain prima
facie (or self-evident) duties which, “all things
being equal,” we must follow.

 He provides a list of prima facie duties such
as honesty, benevolence, justice, etc.

 For example, we have a prima facie duty not
to lie and a prima facie duty to keep a
promise.

 If there are no conflicts in a given situation,
then each prima facie duty is also an actual
duty.

Act Deontology (Continued)

 Ross believes that we can determine what
our overriding duty is in a particular situation
by using a two-step deliberative process, in
which we:

a) reflect on the competing prima facie duties,

b) weigh the evidence at hand to determine
which course of action would be required in
a particular circumstance.

Contract-based Ethical Theories

 From the perspective of social-contract
theory, a moral system comes into
being by virtue of certain contractual
agreements between individuals.

 One of the earliest versions of a
contract-based ethical theory can be
found in the writings of Thomas
Hobbes.

Contract-based Ethical Theories
(Continued)

 One virtue of the social-contract model is that
it gives us a motivation for being moral.

 For example, it is in our individual self-
interest to develop a moral system with rules
(Pojman 2006).

 This type of motivation for establishing a
moral system is absent in both the utilitarian
or deontological theories.

 So a contract-based ethical theory would
seem to have one advantage over both.

Criticisms of Social Contract Theory

 Critics point out that social-contract theory
provides for only a minimalist morality.

 For example, it is minimalist in the sense that we
are obligated to behave morally only where an
explicit or formal contract exists (Pojman 2006).

 So if I have no express contract with you, or if a
country like the U.S. has no explicit contract with
a developing nation, there is no moral obligation
for me to help you, or no obligation for the U.S.
to come to the aid of that developing nation.

Criticism of Social Contract
Theory (Continued)

 We can think of many situations involving
morality where there are no express contracts
or explicit laws describing our obligations to
each other.

 Most of us also believe that in at least some
of these cases, we are morally obligated to
help others when it is in our power to do so.

 Consider the classic case involving Kitty
Genovese in New York in the 1960s.

Criticism of Social Contract
Theory (Continued)

 Philosophers differentiate between two kinds of
legal rights:

 positive rights,

 negative rights.

 Having a negative right to something means
simply that one has the right not to be interfered
with in carrying out the privileges associated with
that right.

 For example, your right to vote and your right to
own a computer are both negative rights.

Positive vs. Negative Rights

 The holder of a negative right has the right
(and the expectation) not to be interfered
with in exercising that right – e.g., the right
to vote in a particular election or the right to
purchase a computer.

 As the holder of these rights, you cannot
demand (or even expect) that others must
either physically transport you to the voting
polls, or provide you with a computer if you
cannot afford to purchase one.

Positive and Negative Rights
(Continued)

 Positive rights are very rare and are much
more difficult to justify philosophically.

 In the U.S., one’s right to receive an
education is a positive right.

 Because all American citizens are entitled to
such an education, they must be provided
with a free public education.

 If education requires Internet access at
home, should students also be provided with
free Internet access?

Character-based Ethical Theories

 Virtue ethics(also sometimes called “character
ethics”) ignores the roles that consequences,
duties, and social contracts play in moral
systems in determining the appropriate
standard for evaluating moral behavior.

 Virtue ethics focuses on criteria having to do
with the character development of individuals
and their acquisition of good character traits
from the kinds of habits they develop.

Character-based Ethical Theory
(continued)

 Virtue ethics can be traced back to Plato and
Aristotle.

 On this view, becoming an ethical person
requires more than simply memorizing and
deliberating on certain kinds of rules.

 What is also needed, in Aristotle view, is that
people develop certain virtues.

 Aristotle believed that to be a moral person,
one had to acquire the right virtues
(strengths or excellences).

Character-based Ethical Theories
(Continued)

 Aristotle believed that through the proper
training and acquisition of “good habits” and
good character traits, one could achieve
moral virtues, such as temperance, courage,
and so forth, that are need to “live well.“

 According to Aristotle, a moral person is one
who is necessarily disposed to do the right
thing.

Character-based Ethical Theories
(Continued)

 Instead of asking, “What should I do in such
and such a situation?”, a virtue ethicist asks:
“What kind of person should I be?”

 The emphasis is on being a moral person –
not simply understanding what moral rules
are and how they apply in certain situations.

 While deontological and utilitarian theories
are “action-oriented” and “rule-oriented,”
virtue ethics is “agent-oriented” because it is
centered on the agent him/her-self.

Criticism of Character-based
Ethical Theories

 Character-based ethical systems tend to
flourish in cultures where there is a greater
emphasis placed on community life than on
individuals.

 In the West, since the Enlightenment, more
emphasis has been placed on the importance
of individual autonomy and individual rights.

 In the Ancient Greek world of Aristotle’s time,
the notion of community was paramount.

Table 2-3: Four Types of Ethical

Theory

Type of Theory Advantages Disadvantages

Consequence-based

(Utilitarian)
Stresses promotion of

happiness and utility

Ignores concerns of justice

for the minority population

Duty-based (Deontology) Stresses the role of duty and
respect for persons

Underestimates the

importance of happiness and

social utility

Contract-based (Rights)

Provides a motivation for

morality
Offers only a minimal

morality

Character-based (Virtue) Stresses moral development
and moral education

Depends on homogeneous

community standards for

morality

Can a Comprehensive Ethical Theory Be Framed
to Combine Two or More Traditional Theories?

 Some Ethicists have tried to combine aspects
of two more theories, such as
consequentialism and deontology.

 Moor (2004) has devised a framework called
“Just Consequentialism” that incorporates
aspects of:

a) deontology (justice),

b) utilitarianism (consequences).

 Moor’s theory has two steps or stages.

James Moor’s Ethical Framework of Just

Consequentialism: A Two-Step Strategy

1. Deliberate over various policies from an impartial point of view to determine whether they

meet the criteria for being ethical policies. A policy is ethical if it:

a. does not cause any unnecessary harms to individual groups

b. supports individual rights, the fulfilling of duties, etc.

2. Select the best policy from the set of just policies arrived at the deliberation stage by ranking

ethical policies in terms of benefits and justifiable (harms). In doing this, be sure to:

a. weigh carefully between the good consequences and the bad consequences in the

ethical policies and
b. distinguish between disagreements about facts and disagreements about principles

and values, when deciding which particular ethical policy should be adopted.